Jesus or Christianity; a study in contrasts

Front matter

aes 3 as : eine is

Sieastt sce a sects

Trees eke ir

Contents

CHAPTER PAGS . Wuat Is tHe Reticion or Jesus? I 1. [he Social Background 3

2. The Teaching of Jesus 14

3. Why Was Jesus Killed? 23

Chapter I What Is The Religion Of Jesus?

Tuts volume is a study in contrasts: divergencies between the religion of Jesus and organized Christianity. No attempt is made in these pages to write a comprehensive history of the latter nor to summarize its incalculable contribution to human welfare. Our libraries are now filled with eulogies of Christianity. Innumerable writers have already told the story of how, in countless ways, it has blessed mankind.! My purpose, instead, is to emphasize the fact that, in spite of the immeasurable good accomplished by Christianity, it has accumulated so many alien and hostile elements as to make it a different religion from the simple faith of its founder.

The religion of Jesus can best be described in terms of the home: God is Father, men are brothers, all life is a domestic affair. ““Love God and love your fellow man”’ is its all-embracing injunction. To build the Family of God, where all members of society will dwell in right relations with the Father and with each other, is the supreme objective. Attitudes and practices which are alien and disruptive to the home should never be indulged in, while the virtues of the

See C. L. Brace, Gesia Christi; also C. D. Eldridge, Christianity’s Contribution to Civilization.

I family should always abound. Each member of the household must run the risks inherent in the abandonment of retaliation and revenge and the reliance upon good will and sacrifice. To live every day as a good member of God’s home: this is the religion of Jesus. Jt is tmperative that the contrasts between Christianity and Jesus be clearly revealed and strongly emphasized. First, because the real significance of Jesus is obscured by the widespread belief that organized Christianity truly reflects his religion; and second, because it will be practically impossible to abolish giant evils while they are hallowed by the blessing of the churches. As long as ministers and laymen labour under the delusion that contemporary Christianity is the same religion that Jesus practised they will remain immunized against his way of life and will lack the vision and power to overthrow entrenched iniquity.

Therefore, we are under the painful necessity of tabulating in cumulative form some of the outstanding violations of the spirit of Jesus found in the history of Christianity. Because there are so many sordid pages in the record, it may help to prevent misunderstanding as to my purpose if the reader is informed at the outset that I am a Christian minister and write as one on the inside; rejoicing in the glorious achievements of the church; grieving over its shortcomings and cruelties; hoping that it will withdraw its support from iniquity and take the religion of Jesus seriously.

No attempt is made in this study to evaluate the relative degree of good and evil in Western civilization. If more space is devoted to the latter than to the former it is because this procedure is necessary in order to emphasize the contrasts between two religions. A few months ago I edited a volume entitled Recent Gains in American Civilization? which reversed the process and set forth the more favourable aspects of our national life. This present discussion, therefore, is neither a history of Christianity nor an interpretation of Western civilization. It is merely a study in contrasts.

Since I have written primarily for ministers and lay members of the churches, I have been far more critical of organized Christianity than if I had been writing for non-Christians. This is also the reason why I have devoted so little space to an enumeration of the glorious achievements of the churches. The reader must, therefore, constantly remember that this presentation by no means constitutes the whole story. If the restricted nature of this inquiry is kept in mind, it seems to me that a study in contrasts is a legitimate and profitable undertaking.

1. THe SoctaL BacKGRouUND?®

Jesus lived in a turbulent world. Foreign conquerors ruled Palestine throughout his lifetime. Even the religious institutions of the Jews were under the supervision and control of pagans from abroad. Dire

2Pyblished by Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York City. 38See V. G. Simkhovitch, Toward the Understanding of Jesus; Samuel

Dickey, The Constructive Revolution of Jesus; S. J. Case, Jesus; S. Angus, The Environment of Early Christianity; Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth; George Foot Moore, Judaism; Chester Charlton McCown, The Genesis of the Social Gospel.

economic distress was everywhere prevalent. Hatred had become a fine art, and armed revolts against Rome occurred at least four times during the days of Jesus.

Bondage was an ancient and frequent experience for the Jews. Many masters had they served. Now it was the Romans. The entire land was dominated by these exponents of law and justice. Politically, economically, ecclesiastically, the Romans reigned. In 63 3B.c. the famous general, Pompey, captured Jerusalem and slaughtered twelve thousand Jews. For a century previously the Hebrew people had been self-governing, beginning with the Maccabean revolt in 164 B. c. Prior to that they had been ruled at various periods by Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. They had undergone long practice in adjusting themselves to servitude.

Jesus was born at the very end of the thirty-threeyear reign of Herod the Great, of whom it was said that ‘“‘he stole along to his throne like a fox, he ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog.”’ Augustus had appointed this alien Idumean as king of Palestine. He was a king who was not actually a ruler, being merely the agent of Rome. Herod was able but ruthless. He was a magnificent builder and an efficient administrator, but he had one of the famous tempers of history. Even wife and children could not escape his murderous fury.

When Herod the Great died in 4 B.c. Rome consented to the division of the territory among his three surviving sons. Archelaus was assigned to

Judea, Antipas secured Galilee, Philip ruled in the northern and northeastern region. As soon as Archelaus ascended the throne a series of bloody riots broke out, but the rebels were no match for the trained soldiery. Three thousand Jews were slaughtered like sheep before the altar, even the courtyard of the Temple being filled with dead patriots. After nine years Archelaus was removed and Judea was again attached to the province of Syria and ruled thereafter by Roman procurators or governors. Antipas, the King Herod referred to during the public ministry of Jesus, was weak, dissolute, and treacherous. Philip seems to have been more tolerant but he does not often appear in the record.

The agents of Rome governed with moderation. It is true that there were excesses and terrible crimes, but compared with other conquerors, the Romans exercised self-restraint. The Jews had fared worse. Life and property were now reasonably secure; majestic public buildings had been erected; the Temple had been rebuilt and as a rule religious worship was not interfered with; trade had been stimulated; famous roads led to the markets of the world; the high seas were safe from pirates.

But there were grievous burdens. Taxes were exorbitant. The glories of the Imperial City, the expenses of the imperial army, the upkeep of the administration, the cost of public edifices and highways—all these required money. Subject peoples must pay and pay heavily. A water tax, a meat tax, a salt tax, a road tax, a house tax, and a city tax— all these the Romans exacted. Legal rates of taxes were high; the amounts collected were outrageous. - Taxes were farmed out to agents and graft was rampant. So rapacious were these tax gatherers that the very word “publican” has become a synonym for ** sinner.”

Furthermore, the Jews were subject to double taxation: political taxation—tribute, they called it— and religious taxation. The priestly theocracy exercised civil as well as ecclesiastical authority and religious taxation was a deeply established practice. There were at least twelve varieties of such taxes, including the tithe, the sin offering, the thank offering, and the first-born of animals. In addition there were free-will offerings. Then there was graft: dishonest exchange in the Temple and extortionate price for sacrificial animals. The populace staggered under the burden. The total taxation of the Jewish people in the days of Jesus reached the stupendous total of thirty to forty per cent. of the national income.*

There were religious grievances, too. Imagine Mussolini deposing the Pope or Lenin unfrocking the Patriarch! No more sacrilegious than for the Roman procurator to unseat the sacred high priest nine times within that many years! Moreover, the Romans were frequently guilty of blasphemy. The full meaning of the situation cannot be understood unless one remembers that the Jews passionately believed themselves to be God’s chosen people; not merely different from other nations, but uniquely and eternally God’s own.

‘See The Economic Background of the Gospels, by Frederick C. Grant, p. 305.

No wonder the Jews were always revolting!® Anything was preferable to the blasphemous tyranny of alien pagans. About the time when Jesus as a boy of twelve was taken to the Temple, Judas of Galilee led a violent revolt against the Romans. The result was tragedy. Sepphoris was burned to the ground and its inhabitants sold into slavery. Two thousand Jewish patriots were crucified. Judas and his followers were mourned as martyrs in freedom’s cause. A few years previous [Theudas and four hundred comrades made a similar attempt and met the same fate. Luke refers to those Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Josephus tells us that Herod beheaded John because of fear that he would instigate another revolution. Barabbas was an insurrectionist who had committed murder during a revolt.

What could one hundred per cent. Jewish patriots expect from the agents of Rome? Law and justice? Yes, if obedient; otherwise, ruthless slaughter. There was no sentimentality about the Romans. Discipline and duty made them stern and relentless. Rebels got no quarter; only glory. It is altogether probable that Jesus was familiar with the scene of a Jewish rebel surrounded by Roman spears carrying his cross up the hillside. The Roman legions were mighty and deliverance seemed impossible except at the hand of God. But He had promised. When the Messiah comes! And so the hearts of the nation beat as one with expectancy. How long, O Lord, how long? Perhaps Jehovah will drive out the Romans with a - See Simkhovitch, op. cit., pp. 5 ff.; Case, op. cit., pp. 142-144.

mighty miracle, perhaps He will send the Son of David to lead his warriors to victory, as He had upheld the arm of Judas Maccabeus in the previous century. Thus it was that during the lifetime of Jesus the question of freedom was the outstanding problem before the Jewish people. Political independence, economic relief, religious integrity, all awaited the Deliverer. The Kingdom of God could never come as long as the Romans ruled.

In the meantime, what could be done? Five answers were given by Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and the disciples of John the Baptist.® The Essenes were communists and ascetics. All possessions were held in common: dwellings, food, clothing, money. They lived chiefly in villages of their own. Most of them were celibates, their colonies being perpetuated by adoption. They were opposed to violence; that is, until the great crisis of the year 70, when they were found in the front ranks of the Jewish patriots. The devotees spent their time in hard work and in the religious exercises of prayer, fasting, bathing. Essenism was an early form of social utopia.

The Sadducees were the Jewish aristocracy, the official and wealthy class. As they held office and enjoyed special privileges, they were more friendly with the Romans. They considered rebellion hopeless and thought it better to bargain with the invader. They believed that ultimately God would send the Messiah and that in the meantime the Jews should

See Klausner, of. cit., pp. 193-228; Moore, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 56 ff; Dickey, op. cit., pp. 13-38.

get along as well as possible. Above all, the Romans must not be antagonized by futile revolts. This policy of the Sadducees may have been determined in part by their disbelief in the resurrection of the dead. If any rewards were ever to be secured they had better be possessed then and there. The Romans had prizes to offer and it seemed wise to make friends with Mammon. And so they wore soft raiment and fared sumptuously; all the while railing at the wild radicals who threatened their privileges and security. The group that most completely identified themselves with Roman and Greek culture were known as the Herodians.

The Pharisees were the popular party. Like all other devout Jews they were strict monotheists and ardent believers in revealed religion. The law came from God, every phrase of it, ceremonial requirements and ethical duties being equally binding. The wisdom of the Almighty must not be questioned. Implicit obedience was necessary to redemption. And so they were legalists. Since a series of rigid laws could not be applied literally in all the complex relationships of life, it was necessary to liberalize the code by definitive commentaries. The result was that parallel with the Law itself had grown up interpretations of the elders. These oral traditions came to be regarded as equally binding. Altogether there were six hundred and thirteen laws, leaving no relationship or emergency unlegislated for; with thirty-nine kinds of acts forbidden on the Sabbath. In- _ sistence upon the authoritative character of these interpretations constituted one difference from the

Sadducees, the latter being loose-constructionists. If Israel would faithfully observe the Law for a single day it was believed that the Messiah would come. The sacrificial system was regarded as divinely instituted and essential to salvation. A famous rabbi went so far as to say: “‘ Were it not for attendance on sacrifices, heaven and earth would not endure.” The horror with which these literalists looked upon any violation of the law is indicated by an eminent Jewish teacher, Dr. Joseph Klausner, who says: “To the orthodox Pharisee (and to the modern orthodox Jew) the violation of the Sabbath and the oppression of the hireling were alike crimes deserving death (and for the average Jew of all times the former seems the worse crime).”” Professor George Foot Moore tells of a band of refugees in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes who “‘let themselves be slaughtered, with their wives and children, rather than profane the Sabbath by raising a hand to defend themselves.’

The Pharisees were passionately concerned about political freedom, chiefly because the conqueror threatened or prevented religious liberty. Acknowledging God alone as King, they looked upon the Romans as blasphemers and idolators.

John and hts followers held many views in common with the Pharisees and were tinged with Essenism. John lived in the desert as an ascetic, wearing the garb of a prophet, and calling his hearers to drastic acts of renunciation. But he differed from the Essenes in that he did not believe in complete separa-

WHAT IS THE RELIGION OF JESUS? If tion from society. On the contrary, he and his disciples regarded themselves as evangelists called to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah. John was a devout Jew and there is no evidence that he ever broke completely with Judaism. His emphasis was on repentance and his message was apocalyptic in character. The Messianic age could be hastened by an inner change of heart. His demands were ethical and moral, but he seems to have observed the ceremonial law. Certainly he and his disciples emphasized fasting. On the other hand, he never fully identified himself with Jesus. Although the latter was undoubtedly influenced by John and eulogized him as one of the earth’s greatest, he never regarded the prophet of the wilderness as a member of his own inner circle. There was more or less hostility between the followers of John and those of Jesus, and the two groups never merged completely. Even after Jesus’ death we find references to John’s disciples. Paul found it necessary to instruct Apollos of Alexandria and certain others who had been initiated “‘by the baptism of John” only. John was a great reformer with a profoundly ethical and spiritual message, and it is possible that later he might have identified himself completely with the cause of Jesus if he had not been beheaded as a potential revolutionist by Herod.°

The Zealots were the radicals of the day. They advocated and plotted violent revolution. The political tyranny and economic exploitation of the Romans

9See an essay by Professor E. W. Parsons in Studies in Early Christian ity, edited by S. J. Case.

were considered utterly intolerable and patience was regarded as a crime. Daggers and swords were advocated as means of hastening the Messiah’s advent. No risk was too great to run, the cost must not be counted. The only alternatives seemed to be liberty or death. “‘They possess unbounded love for liberty,” says Josephus, “and look upon God as their only leader and ruler; it was a light thing for them to go forth to meet death, nor did they regard the death of their companions and kinsfolk, if only they might save themselves from the burden of a human ruler. ... What I have said has not told all the greatness of their soul and their readiness to endure sufferings.”

It was in this kind of world that Jesus lived all his days. Six decades before his birth the Romans came. Four decades after his crucifixion the Holy City was utterly demolished by the imperial legions. Never for an hour during these one hundred and thirty-five years were the Jews reconciled to their bondage. “‘Scarcely a year went by,” says Dr. Joseph Klausner, “during this century without wars or other disturbances; wars, rebellions, outbreaks, and riots; and this state of things prevailed in the Land of Israel throughout the whole epoch which preceded Jesus and prevailed also during his lifetime.’’!®

The New Testament abounds with evidence concerning the tense situation which prevailed." According to the record of Matthew, Jesus was born at Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary had gone for the Roman census, which was to be used as a basis for

WO, cit., p. 167. 41Simkhovitch, op. cit., pp. 5 ff.; Dickey, op. cit., pp. 85-114.

taxation. The story of the slaying of the children of Bethlehem by Herod assumes new significance if the historical background is kept in mind. Two revolutionary leaders, Theudas and Judas, are mentioned by name in the Acts of the Apostles. Luke tells of certain Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Barabbas is described as “‘one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.”’ Simon the Zealot was numbered among the Twelve and some traditions maintain that Judas Iscariot was also a Zealot. Jesus was frequently referred to as “‘son of David,” and on one occasion the populace gave him a royal reception by spreading their garments in his way and crying aloud their hosannas in anticipation of his Messianic reign. The sons of Zebedee requested the honour of sitting at his right and left when he ascended the throne. The chief priests once assembled a special council and said: “‘If we let him alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ On one occasion the Pharisees sought to trap Jesus with the famous question: “Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cesar or not?’ An affirmative answer would have repelled patriotic Jews, while a negative vesponse would have embroiled him with the Roman authorities. In the record tax collectors are usually classed with outcasts and sinners.

The charge against Jesus before Pilate was that of sedition: “‘We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Casar, and saying ; that he himself is Christ, a king. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews?’ When Pilate sought to release Jesus he was restrained by the reminder, ‘‘If thou release this man thou art not Ceesar’s friend; everyone that maketh himself a king speaketh against Cesar.” In order to humiliate the patriotic Jews Pilate placed a sign above the cross on which Jesus was crucified: “The King of the Jews.” Even after the resurrection of Jesus his disciples were still expecting him to bring national deliverance and freedom: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?’’ Several times Jesus referred to the probable results of hatred and rebellion against Rome. Once he said: ‘““When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judea flee into the mountains.” At every turn Jesus was confronted with the problem; everywhere the expectation.

2. THE TEACHING OF JEsuUs”

The religion of Jesus begins and ends in the home. All life is a domestic affair. The universal family embraces every race and tongue. Man’s primary purpose is to establish the Family of God, where all persons will dwell in right relations with the Father and with each other. The way to create God’s home is to live every day as a good member of the family. Only those ends are worthy which are consonant with the family spirit and only those methods are justifiable which are appropriate in the home. The domestic

2See E. F. Scott, The Ethical Teachings of Jesus; J. Middleton Murry,

Jesus: Man of Genius; S. J. Case, Jesus; Walter E. Bundy, The Religion of Jesus.

virtues must never be repudiated or abandoned, even in hours of extreme peril. Members of the household must assume the risks and accept the consequences of treating each other under every conceivable circumstance as kinsmen. Love God and love your neighbour. Live to-day as if the ideal society has already come to pass. The Kingdom of God is within you. It is all about you.

God is Father and perfectly exemplifies the spirit of the home. Wisdom and understanding are His. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowledge. Active and persistent is He in the effort to establish the perfect family. He is loving and has personal affection for each of His children. With Him all things are possible that can be accomplished by love. Ever present and accessible, He is eager to enter into an intimate comradeship with every member of the household. He makes the sun shine on the evil and the good and the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. He is forgiving and always goes out to meet the prodigal. Patient and long-suffering beyond comparison, holy and righteous altogether, He ever couples mercy with justice. Never does he violate the spirit of the home.

Jesus not only believed in God, he trusted Him. It is one thing to give intellectual assent to the idea that God is Father; it is a very different thing to rely upon Him in all the crises of life. The God of Jesus is accessible, responsive, codperative, and powerful. Jesus unburdened himself to God as naturally as the bud unfolds to the sun. At the break of dawn, in the silences of midnight, and in every hour of need he talked with God and listened to His voice. Without questioning, he assumed the sympathy and affection of the Father. Since his whole life was dedicated to the doing of God’s will, he never doubted that help would be forthcoming from the Eternal. Jesus staked everything upon the reliability of God. Apart from this faith and this dependence, his life is meaningless and his teachings become tragic mockery. The religion and the ethics of Jesus are utterly inseparable.

The God of Jesus differs fundamentally from the Jehovah presented in many sections of the Old Testament, where Yahweh is frequently pictured as authorizing pillage and slaughter and often as himself an active participant in war, as may be seen from the following passages:

“Thus saith Jehovah of hosts. . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. . . . Jehovah hath sworn: Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. . . . He shall eat up the nations of his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces, and smite them through with his arrows. ... «My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword. ... Thou shalt give life for life... . Jehovah hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. . . . Jehovah cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: They were more who died with the hail-stones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. ... And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger and in wrath, and in great indignation. . . . For behold, I will send serpents, adders, among you, which will not be charmed; and they shall bite you, saith Jehovah. . . . I will consume them by the sword, and by famine, and by the pestilence. .. . And their dead bodies shall be food unto the birds of the heavens, and to the beasts of the earth .. . yes I trod them in mine anger, and trampled them in my wrath; _and their lifeblood is sprinkled upon my garments.”

Literally hundreds of passages of this character could be cited. An authoritative study of this whole question was published recently as a doctor’s thesis at Teachers College, Columbia University, under the title, The God of the Old Testament in Relation to War. The major conclusion of the author, Dr. Marion J. Benedict, is summarized as follows: “Yahweh has been found to be a God of war throughout most of the Old Testament material. In fact, the book of Ruth is practically the only entire document in which Yahweh is not directly or indirectly associated with warfare.” Here and there are to be found notable exceptions to this view, chiefly in Amos, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jonah, and Isaiah 19: 18-25. But these exceptions only serve to emphasize the all but universal idea that Yahweh was a god of war.

The teaching of Jesus concerning eternal punishment is often regarded as picturing God in the form of a cruel judge. If Jesus really taught that sinners are doomed by God to burn throughout eternity in a literal lake of fire, then his God is not a loving heavenly Father. Certainly no affectionate human parent would treat a beloved child in this barbarous manner. It is utterly unthinkable that Jesus would himself condemn a wrongdoer to everlasting torture.

If he conceived of the Eternal in this image, then the God thus envisaged is a moral monstrosity. But is this the teaching of Jesus? It seems quite incredible. Moreover, it is by no means a necessary interpretation. Like any other Oriental teacher he spoke in parables and figurative language. Allowance must also be made for misinterpretations by the persons who recorded their impressions of his words. Jesus frequently pointed out the inevitable consequences of human conduct. It would be easy for his hearers to assume that he was uttering threats of punishment. When he refers to the suffering caused by the fires of Gehenna as analogous to the miseries produced by unfilial and antisocial conduct, it would not be dificult to interpret him as saying that God condemns the wicked to eternal fire, especially since the minds of his hearers were saturated with this idea. There is, however, a vast difference between consequence and punishment. When a child disregards his mother’s warning and plays with fire the pain which he suffers is a consequence, not a punishment. The God of Jesus permits fire to burn; He does not throw his unruly children into a furnace. The Father of the prodigal son could never consign his child to eternal flames. The Good Shepherd could never torture the wandering sheep. It is not the will of your Father that one of his little ones should perish, much less be endlessly tortured.”

Since God is Father of all, there 1s only one family. Every human being is privileged and obliged to treat

48Concerning this point see an illuminating discussion by Lily Dougal and C. W. Emmet, The Lord of Thought.

every other individual as a member of the household. Attitudes and practices that violate the spirit of the home should never be tolerated. No son should be guilty of blasphemy and irreverence. Indifference to His presence and disobedience to His wishes grieve the Father. Ingratitude is baseness itself.

Beware of covetousness. Greed wrecks the family. Avarice is so deadly that if a man cannot conquer it he must sell all that he has and give it to the poor. Pride and ostentation are disgusting; hypocrisy destroys fellowship; anxiety is a cancer; extortion and exploitation are out of place in the home; lust is a perversion and should be shunned. To seek physical thrills at the expense of another is to disregard the value of personality. Anger is poison. Hatred breaks the family bond. Revenge is never sought in a true home. Murder of a beloved kinsman is unthinkable. Woe unto the man who causes his brother to stumble or drags him through the mire. To wreck the personality of a fellow man is worse than to drown one’s own body in the deep sea.

The home is a place of affection. Understanding is sought, sympathy prevails, kindliness is manifested. Mutual forbearance is the rule; patience is exhibited; forgiveness brings reconciliation. Everyone delights in serving the others. Sacrifice is joyously accepted. The welfare of the group takes precedence over the desires of any member. The one increasing purpose of life is the creation of the Family of God. This is the pearl of great price. In order to secure it a man will eagerly sell all he has. This treasure will be sought until it is found. Any person who turns back from this adventure is an unworthy member of the home. No distraction should be permitted to interfere or obstruct. The desire for comfort, privilege, prestige, or safety must not be allowed to stand in the way. What good will it do if a man gain many possessions and lose his zeal for fellowship’? The deceitfulness of riches has ensnared many an unwary traveller. Rather than be paralyzed by desire, one must pluck out an eye or amputate an arm. It is better to continue the pursuit maimed and blind than to be swerved by fleshpots. He that endures to the end will be victorious.